Posted
by
Soulskill
on Saturday June 04, 2011 @12:01PM
from the sounds-like-something-needs-to-be-leaked dept.

geegel writes "The US Justice Department is now fighting in court demands from three WikiLeaks associates to disclose the names of several electronic service platforms that received requests to hand over user information. This comes after Twitter obtained a court order to unseal the demands in order to notify the three persons. The current legal row has seen both the ACLU and the EFF provide legal assistance to the WikiLeaks associates."

And people who aren't Freemasons can't wear the Freemason ring. However, since I'm not a Freemason, their prohibition doesn't affect me; therefore, I can wear their ring if I want to. The US's jurisdiction isn't supposed to reach outside its borders (even if it does in fact).

Even if you accept the US's jurisdiction as world-wide, what Wikileaks did wasn't illegal. It falls squarely under freedom of the press. What Manning did was illegal, and he'll be punished for it, but once the information is out there, the media has no obligation to cover it up.

He has/already/ been punished and made an example of. I wander how history will remember Manning...

Assuming you mean "wonder" and "wander" was a typo Manning's likely to be veiwed like all too many spies/oathbreakers: some will think he was useful at best maybe even sympathetic, but NEVER to be trusted or believed. And if it turns out Wikileaks is just Julian Assange's anti-US cult-of-personality, Manning will go down as a tool.

Not too many spies in history who divulged classified/secret data who are held in high esteem by anyone.

There is no privacy today for anyone. The only real privacy relied on good manners and a modicum of respect to others but these attributes are sadly absent today by anyone's standards. Whether it's a government agency or just some knucklehead publishing stolen customer information online privacy is gone.

Young Manning doesn't have to be guilty of the various laws which you have attempted to cite. Mr. Manning is and was subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He broke many regulations under that code. It remains to be seen whether the advocates can or will press the case as a capital case. They COULD.

And, before you try to tell me that the UCMJ doesn't authorize capital punishment - it does. In fact, a summary court martial followed by an immediate execution is unheard of today, but the UCMJ st

they are things like 'moving information from a classified system to an unclassified system', or 'using a computer for its non-intended purpose'. it doesnt have anything about 'passing classified information to wikileaks'. it might say a lot of things, but thats one thing it doesnt say.

you have also mentioned 'stolen' information. this i find very hard to understand. all US government work is uncopyrightable, it is in the public domain. where does the 'value' then

because the media has painted him as the 'worst leaker in history' when the charges do not justify this portrayal

because the anger against wikileaks and Manning, stoked by illogical and incorrect assertions regarding his actions and the legality or illegality of them, will result in bad legal precedent, if he is convicted on all counts

because that precedent will then be used to target many, many other people for things like leaking embarassing videos.

He is not charged with Treason either. Why not? Could it be that the 'worst leaker in US military history' didnt leak anything all that important? Could it be that the state department over-classifies most of its material for political reasons?

No, it's because Treason is a crime specifically defined in the US Constitution. Manning's circumstances don't meet the Constitutional test for treason.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

As far as I recall or know, only one person has been charged with treason sinc

The first article you linked to discusses a lot of allegations in the wikileaks info - it doesnt go into much detail about the disruption caused.

The second article you linked to says this: "The repercussions for US diplomats, some of whom have written colourful descriptions of their host countries and leaders, have so far been relatively minor."

"It said officials believed the disclosure of the cables had affected contacts in some countries between US diplomats and human rights activists, who were now wary

What wikileaks did was illegal? Please, cite some laws that they broke. If you actually find some laws that you think that they broke, then PLEASE follow up with your rationale for US jurisdiction over wikileaks and/or Julian Assange. I would really prefer if you could keep it rational, and paint a nice clear picture for dummies to understand.

Before you start, allow me to point out that Julian is not a US citizen, nor is wikileaks a US company, corporation, organization, nonprofit, or any other such enti

The only law I can see anyone possibly breaking would be accepting stolen property and then selling it for profit which Wiki leaks has been doing. In normal situations a journalist or news outlet is protected by law when it comes to questioning the source of their information. In this case everyone knows where the information came from and the US is attempting to refine their knowledge on the actually path the information took once it was stolen. I don't really think they will be able to do anything but st

As someone already pointed out, you can't really steal information that is in the public domain to begin with. As for WikiLeaks selling the intel, I would be very sceptical of such reports. There's a lot of disinfo mixed in with the real information regarding WikiLeaks.

That's like saying I can steal your car and then leave it in parking lot some where with the keys in the ignition. This doesn't mean the car is suddenly in the public domain. Any one taking the car would be charged as an accessory to the original crime or charged with accepting stolen property.
In this case the military information was acquired illegally under US law. The military documents were definitely not in the public domain. I imagine that the only people who could be charged are those that released

That's like saying I can steal your car and then leave it in parking lot some where with the keys in the ignition.

Here we are talking about intellectual property, as opposed to tangible goods.

The military documents were definitely not in the public domain.

On one hand, you have information as completely abstract concept which is not a property, and you have documents (classified or otherwise) which are tangible copyrightable work of the US agencies. Since US has a rule that government-produced work cannot be copyrighted [wikipedia.org] it does not enjoy the level of protection that other copyrighted works enjoy. This applies to all documents produced within the government. Military documents are, n

IP can be considered tangible goods in every since of the word. But I seriously doubt the military gives a damn about the nuances of copyright law in this instance. They went directly to classifying the material protected under the laws governing military and state secrets. Even if copyright laws were being applied the theft and dissemination of the information would be like hacking into a publishers library and downloading a new unreleased novel or song before it was officially released under the applicabl

IP can be considered tangible goods in every since of the word. But I seriously doubt the military gives a damn about the nuances of copyright law in this instance.

And you're right. Military doesn't give a shit about copyright protection because there is none. They do care about copyrighted work of their contractors, but that's a different matter, and certainly has nothing to do with diplomatic cables in question. Diplomatic staff are all government people, so whatever material they produce is considered public domain, regardless of their classification. So, they cannot care about copyright laws even if they wanted to. What they do care about is the way classified doc

Have you turned over any records to the Feds concerning Wikileaks members (or any records, period)? If you can't comment on that, then perhaps you could outline what Slashdot's policy is for turning over records to law enforcement when not accompanied by a Federal warrant or National Security letter.

I can recall. It was court ordered. Gun-on-the-head-like. The whole site would have gone down, and the guys gone to coercive contention. Something like that.

Yes, that's a crime, and the criminal is the child-raping terrorist mass-murdering jacking-off-into-the-wounds-of-the-tortured financially conspiring social engineering warlocks called "Scientology"*. With the assistance of a Cheney-like court, lacking spines, balls, a heart, or any kind of emotion, pissing on the constitution and shitting on the faces

Years ago someone posted the "top secret" scientology documents into the comments and they were deleted. I can't recall if it was court ordered or merely a scare letter from an attorney.

I know this is rather unrelated here, but the real difference between a religion and a cult is the amount of secrecy leaders want/need. I don't subscribe to organized religion, but I don't recall other religions being so damned secretive of their "documents", which is rather laughable with scientology, since most of their "documents" can be found in the science fiction section if any bookstore, filed under "Hubbard".

We haven't received any such requests since I've been working here, so no, nothing's been turned over to the Feds or anybody else. I'm not aware of any requests happening before that either, but I couldn't say for sure.

The closest we've come, to my knowledge, was a DMCA takedown request [slashdot.org] after copyrighted Scientology material was posted in a comment. The comment ended up being deleted, but I think the post pretty clearly illustrates how we felt about that. There was also a time Microsoft asked us to remove some comments [slashdot.org] back in 2000. Those comments stayed in place [slashdot.org].

I actually have no idea if we have a "policy" for such requests, since it hasn't come up. If it were up to me, I'd tell them to get stuffed. I suspect CmdrTaco would as well. Honestly, I don't know what records we'd have that would be worth requesting.

We haven't received any such requests since I've been working here, so no, nothing's been turned over to the Feds or anybody else.

Look. I know how this stuff goes. You can't exactly say that you did, but if you have, just give us a signal -- Maybe just cough twice (er, no -- something electronic...) OK just cause a few server errors -- that'll be the signal.

We haven't received any such requests since I've been working here, so no, nothing's been turned over to the Feds or anybody else.

OK just cause a few server errors -- that'll be the signal.

So, every one of those damned 503 errors was a subpoena or NSL-based request? Wait, you probably can't answer that and stay out of PMITA accommodations, so I'll rephrase it.
So, every one of those damned 503 errors caused your nose to grow longer?

I've always wondered whether libraries/etc who would like to protest these kinds of gag orders could easily get around them in this manner:

Every week post a list of library card numbers with the statement "we declare that we've never gotten a request for records for any of these numbers."

Then one week the list change slightly - three numbers are missing from the list, and a new list is started "we can neither confirm nor deny that we've gotten a request for records of any of these numbers."

i would say the vast majority do not understand or care about what you are talking about. if the police come asking for stuff, their first instinct is to be helpful and get rid of the 'bad people'.

libraries are top down bureaucracies that make corporate life seem like a montessori school. independent thought is not allowed, especially regarding "the computers", control of which many library administrators cling to as some kind of ailment for middle age.

Why would the justice dept want to hide who it is asking records from.

If they are in the right.. well.. why hide it.

BecauseA) the public might get uppity and demand that private corporations not give up information without a fight.B) the public might stop patronising the services of private corporations that the government requests information from.

Those are both very real arguments that have been made by government lawyers in court cases.The government can't afford to have corporations stonewall them because the public doesn't like being snooped on.

Why would the justice dept want to hide who it is asking records from.

If they are in the right.. well.. why hide it.

Because surveillance operations and investigations are usually most effective when they're secret so the subjects of the investigation / surveillance don't change their incriminating behavior, or try to destroy evidence?

Really, is this not obvious? Why don't football players call the play in the open when they line up so the other team can hear? "Left end run on three -- hut - hut - hut - Oh! That had to hurt!"

If they hadn't spent so much time destroying their own credibility with the people and if they didn't act so much like paranoid lunatics most of the time, people would voluntarily keep it quiet, just for the asking.

Once upon a time [cbsnews.com], Haiti was going to increase their minimum wage from $0.24/hour to $0.61/hour. Levi Strauss and Hanes (among others) didn't like that, so the US State Department pressuredHaiti to create an exemption for textile workers.

A Wikileaks post published on The Nation shows that the Obama Administration fought to keep Haitian wages at 31 cents an hour

Once again we see Wikileaks essentially in the role of, "If you don't know it, it's news to you". Geeks that wouldn't give a damn about anything in Haiti are finally reading about it in Wikileaks, take whatever information is there with no context, and assume the worst.

The debate has fuelled unrest across the impoverished Caribbean nation. Some critics argue that an increase would hurt plans to fight widespread unemployment by creating jobs in factories that produce clothing for export to the United States. . . .

Many in the international community who view garment factories as the way to boost Haiti's economic development oppose the wage increase.

With new trade advantages that allow for duty-free exports of clothing to the US, such factories could provide "several hundred thousand jobs to Haitians... over a period of just a few years," according to a report submitted to the UN in January.

But it said that plan requires that costs be kept down.

The report had been requested by Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and prepared by Oxford University professor Paul Collier. It is now being promoted by former US President Bill Clinton, the new UN envoy for Haiti.

Republican or Democrat, it makes no bloody difference - are you naive enough to still think the US is a democracy? Both serve corporate interests instead of the people - voting is so fraud infected it's ludicrous.

What Wikileaks has done is allowed EVERYONE to see what's going on, even when people with their heads up their arses say 'nothing new here, move along, Wikileaks isn't important'.

That is not what is at issue here. What is at issue is that the justice dept is handing out requests for user information like candy and not allowing anyone to know who they are asking. It reeks of gestapo and should not be confused with whether or not Wikileaks is a national security risk.

I have no sympathy for Wikileaks when it comes to National Defense secrets. There is a whole magnitude of difference from corporate malfeasance in these leaks.

My impression of the US diplomats has had a huge boost after reading summaries about how they reported about other countries and people. It was sharp and a lot better than I expected (looking back at eight years of Bush). I haven't seen anything yet that would seriously harm the US interest. For everything that I have read in newspapers, it only has made the world better.

So can you tell me (at least) one national defense secret that has been published and that harms the US?

subparagraph (e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, orcontrol over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch,photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model,instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, orinformation relating to the national defense which information thepossessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of theUnited States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfullycommunicates, deli

I know I'm paraphrasing this analogy badly, but here goes:Leaking secrets is like breaking somebody's basement window. Nobody's life is directly threatened by the act, but it may expose the fact that there is a slave in the basement; the owner deserves every bit of embarrassment and punishment that is to follow.

There is nothing in the public sphere that should be kept secret. If officials are running shady international operations, it's only their fault when it blows up in their face.